ISRAEL WEINSTOCK, an attorney admitted to practice in the State of New York,affirms and declares under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of New York as follows:

I

The Nature of This Matter

1. I am an attorney duly admitted to practice in the Courts of the State of New York. The following facts are within my personal knowledge except where stated to be on information and belief, in which case I am informed and believe them to be true.

2. I am the Respondent in this proceeding. I make this affirmation in support of my claim that the only recommendation appropriate to Special Referee the

Honorable Albert A. Blinder upon the instant hearing in mitigation in this proceeding is that no disciplinary action be taken.

3. By motion in this matter calendared for hearing May 4, 2001 I sought an adjournment of these hearings in mitigation in the interests of justice to allow a proper determination of the factual issues in this proceeding.

4. By motion calendared for hearing May 4, 2001 I sought an evidentiary hearing in mitigation in this matter in order to fairly determine the appropriate action, if any, now to be taken in this proceeding.

5. The purpose of the adjournment I sought was to allow me to file a motion requesting that Justice Lewis Douglass reconsider, pursuant to CPLR § 5015, his decision of March 13, 1997, published as Walker v. Weinstock, 173 Misc.2d 1, 658 N.Y.S.2d 167 (Sup. Ct., Kings Cty., 1997), and requesting that upon reconsideration he vacate that judgment and enter judgment in my favor.

6. Justice Douglass' decision, as affirmed by the Appellate Division, forms the factual predicate for Charges One and Two of the Petition herein. Charges One and Two allege that I engaged in conduct involving overreaching

and coercion, and improperly acquired a proprietary interest in the subject matter of litigation. The charges flow from findings of Judge Lewis Douglass in the case of Emmerich Handler, Jack Walker and the Kaminetzer Yeshiva of Jerusalem v. Israel Weinstock (KingsCounty, Index No. 27600/86).

7. This Court, in its decision of December 20, 2000 determined that I am collaterally estopped from contesting any factual issues in this proceeding.

8. I requested an evidentiary hearing in mitigation because I wish to present evidence in mitigation through the testimony of witnesses Emmerich Handler, Robert Saltzman, Esq., and Susan Korenberg, Esq., to establish that the protection of the public sought to be achieved in this matter requires no further disciplinary action. This is because the charges herein were made to further a purpose wholly unrelated to the proper administration of justice and the protection of the public. They were brought for the wholly improper purpose of curtailing my lawful use of the courts in this state.

9. The Appellate Division by decision and order dated June 8, 2001 denied without comment my motion for an adjournment and for an evidentiary hearing.

10. Charges Three and Four of the Petition herein arise out of my unsuccessful appeal to the Appellate Division, Second Department of a decision of Justice S. Golar of the Supreme Court, KingsCounty. They are based on the simple premise that I brought an appeal for the sole purpose of harassing my former wife by needlesslyforcing her to pay attorney's fees.

13. While the Decision and Order of the Appellate Division in this case dated December 15, 2000 found me collaterally estopped from contesting any factual issues in this proceeding, the circumstances surrounding my bringing that appeal are clearly relevant to the issue of mitigation.

14. Further, it is my firm belief that the circumstances surrounding the appellate proceedings which resulted in the "findings" that I filed an appeal maliciously, as well as the circumstances under which the instant Petition was brought, evidence a corrupt motive for prosecution of these proceedings.

15. That motive is the desire of my adversary Emmerich Handler to dissuade me from enforcing my two judgments1 against him, and the desire of Emmerich Handler and others to preclude me from exposing the frauds perpetrated against me by Handler and his attorneys.

16. This Petition follows upon the complaints to the Grievance Committee for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts brought by Emmerich Handler and his business partner Jack Walker in August and September 1998 (only weeks after I acquired the judgment against Emmerich Handler in MLE Realty Associates v. Handler, (S.D.N.Y. Case No. 0668/93) alleging the matters underlying Charges One and Two herein-that through coercion I acquired from Jack Walker an interest in the subject matter of litigation I conducted on his behalf.

17. Primary evidence of complainants intent to use these disciplinary proceedings to dissuade me from enforcing my two judgments against him is found in the fact that Emmerich Handler sent emissaries to me offering to withdraw the Handler (and Walker) complaints if I stopped pursuing him.

18. Emmerich Handler has on at least two other occasions used similar tactics to defeat adversaries.

19. In the matter litigated as Alex Simke et al v. Emmerich Handler et al (Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, Case. No. C 45279), Emmerich Handler filed a complaint against plaintiff's attorney with the Disciplinary Committee, and sued him as well.

21. Emmerich Handler has filed a disciplinary complaint against his former attorney Mark Lichtschein and has sued him and his law firm as well (Handler v. Lichtschein et. al., Supreme Court Kings County Index No. 7237/94).

22. Emmerich Handler alleged improper conduct by his own former attorney Edward Rubin in the same case as well as in the case of Handler v. Weinstock (Supreme Court Kings County Index No. 042682/1997 ). He has alleged improper conduct by his attorney Matthew King in bankruptcy proceedings in the case of In re: Twenty Six Realty Associates. L.P.. (U.S. Bankruptcy Ct., Eastern District of New York Case No. 193- 17065-260).

23. Mr. Handler's tactics in these matters have been repeated here. The result has not however been repeated, because I refuse to succumb to these tactics.

24. Because of this I have been subjected to disciplinary proceedings respecting not only the complaints of Emmerich Handler and Jack Walker, but respecting the appeal I took in the matter of Weinstock v. Weinstock, arising out of my matrimonial litigation, in which I sought simply to protect my good name.

25. I brought that appeal, and the motion underlying it, because evidence surfaced in the matter that showed the fraud perpetrated on the Court by the attorneys for my wife in earlier proceedings in the same matter. Those earlier proceedings concluded in findings by the Appellate Division that were very damaging to my good name. The findings were shown by the new evidence to have resulted from false evidence fabricated by the attorneys for my wife-whose sole purpose in the matter was to enrich themselves.